Multiple CFML engines can become problematic when their creators begin to introduce a plethora of new proprietary tags and lack support for common tags. HTML would have seen it's demise a long time ago if the W3C was never formed to create standards that browser companies are practically obligated to conform to.
I don't know how or in what fashion, but I think a consortium should be formed to govern the CFML tag base. Then it would be up to Adobe, New Atlanta, and the folks from Railo to conform to the standards set up by the CFML consortium. What do you think? -Aaron On 2/2/06, Rick Faircloth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Who not? Competition seems good, especially if a competent > competitor has a price of $250 instead of $1250... > > Why do you think it would be a negative to have another engine? > > Rick > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:25 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Bluedragon 6.1 > > > > > > On a side, do we really need another CFML parsing engine? I mean > > what is the > > MO here? > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:231122 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
